If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

If your Stern, and you're trying to prove to the players that you "won" the lockout, what better way than shipping Paul to a small market team like us? Stern honestly doesn't give a **** anymore what anyone thinks.

Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

Until the NBA sells the Hornets, they can have whatever excuse they want to veto the trade. I seriously doubt they were mad at the simple fact that the Lakers were getting him, or they wouldn't have spent even more time trying to make a better deal.

At the end of the day, the Lakers offer wasn't good enough for Stern, and he was willing to trade him to the Lakers.

Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

Until the NBA sells the Hornets, they can have whatever excuse they want to veto the trade. I seriously doubt they were mad at the simple fact that the Lakers were getting him, or they wouldn't have spent even more time trying to make a better deal.

At the end of the day, the Lakers offer wasn't good enough for Stern, and he was willing to trade him to the Lakers.

Just because it's Gilbert's reasoning, doesn't mean it was Stern's.

It wasn't until Thursday that a team knew an offer had to be good enough for Stern, hence why they were dealing with the GM of the Hornets.

If the league had been honest from the beginning and let people know that Stern had ultimate veto power then this wouldn't have been quite as big an issue. But instead, the league said that they would stay out of the FO decisions. That's why everyone was broadsided by this.

Letting other owners influence what goes on in the front office presents so many ridiculous conflicts of interest issues that it's not even funny. You have the issue of spite as was the case here, as well as the fact that some owners (particular WC ones) might want to do a deal that screws the Hornets so it helps their own teams. These owners have no business whatsoever influencing the front office decisions of this team.

Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

Wow, what does the league want sent to NOLA for CP3? I'd taken the LAC offer and run to the bank!

"Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

"And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "
Want your own "Just Say No to Kamen" from @mkroeger pic? http://twitpic.com/a3hmca

It would be a travesty to allow the Lakers to acquire Chris Paul in the apparent trade being discussed.

This trade should go to a vote of the 29 owners of the Hornets.

Over the next three seasons this deal would save the Lakers approximately $20 million in salaries and approximately $21 million in luxury taxes. That $21 million goes to non-taxpaying teams and to fund revenue sharing.

I cannot remember ever seeing a trade where a team got by far the best player in the trade and saved over $40 million in the process. And it doesn't appear that they would give up any draft picks, which might allow to later make a trade for Dwight Howard. (They would also get a large trade exception that would help them improve their team and/or eventually trade for Howard.) When the Lakers got Pau Gasol (at the time considered an extremely lopsided trade) they took on tens of millions in additional salary and luxury tax and they gave up a number of prospects (one in Marc Gasol who may become a max-salary player).

I just don't see how we can allow this trade to happen.

I know the vast majority of owners feel the same way that I do.

When will we just change the name of 25 of the 30 teams to the Washington Generals?

Please advise...

Dan G.

Granted, it doesn't mention New Orleans paying more money, but it sure does mention LA paying less, and LA dumping salary obligations meant that NO was picking them up, since the proposed deal was nearly cost-neutral to Houston.

Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

It wasn't until Thursday that a team knew an offer had to be good enough for Stern, hence why they were dealing with the GM of the Hornets.

If the league had been honest from the beginning and let people know that Stern had ultimate veto power then this wouldn't have been quite as big an issue. But instead, the league said that they would stay out of the FO decisions. That's why everyone was broadsided by this.

Letting other owners influence what goes on in the front office presents so many ridiculous conflicts of interest issues that it's not even funny. You have the issue of spite as was the case here, as well as the fact that some owners (particular WC ones) might want to do a deal that screws the Hornets so it helps their own teams. These owners have no business whatsoever influencing the front office decisions of this team.

I agree, but the first deal was flat out ruinous for the Hornets. They were taking in millions in salary to get some highly paid veterans who aren't worth much. Odom was worth a late first rounder (and the team sending the pick gets to pick the draft); how much do you think Kevin Martin or Scola are worth? It was a bizarre deal for a rebuilding franchise to make.

Have you ever wondered why Demps agreed to that deal? I'm honestly curious. I find it hard to believe he actually believe that was the best deal he had on the table - from the Hornets perspective.

What Stern needs to do is to fire Demps, hire a GM with a modicum of basketball sense and instruct him about the strategy he wants - then stay out of it.

Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

It wasn't until Thursday that a team knew an offer had to be good enough for Stern, hence why they were dealing with the GM of the Hornets.

If the league had been honest from the beginning and let people know that Stern had ultimate veto power then this wouldn't have been quite as big an issue. But instead, the league said that they would stay out of the FO decisions. That's why everyone was broadsided by this.

Letting other owners influence what goes on in the front office presents so many ridiculous conflicts of interest issues that it's not even funny. You have the issue of spite as was the case here, as well as the fact that some owners (particular WC ones) might want to do a deal that screws the Hornets so it helps their own teams. These owners have no business whatsoever influencing the front office decisions of this team.

I agree it was handled poorly, but you're trying to say that the reason they vetoed it, was because the Lakers were the one's ending up with CP3. If that was the case, then they would have simply killed the trade and moved on to the next one, instead of going back and taking yet another entire day to try and make the trade happen.

So it really wasn't about him going to the Lakers, but rather, the fact that it was a horrible deal for NOH, when you look at the entire context of the deal.

And yes, it was handled horribly, but the other 28 owners own the Hornets and because they own it, they should get a say.

Do you remember how screwy dealing with Atlanta used to be, when they had 7 different owners who all got to voice their opinion? This situation is no different.

I just don't think Stern realized that Demps was a complete moron. There's no way you lose the best player in the deal, don't even get a first round pick, and take on an $20mil and that be considered a "good" deal for a franchise that needs a new owner and a complete roster overhaul.

I bet Demps lost all the control he thought he had. You can clearly see the difference in how NOH handled the Clippers deal that fell through and the Lakers deal they tried taking. I don't think Demps is the one pulling the strings now.

Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

Read Dan Gilbert's email to Stern. He didn't even mention 19 million. He probably wasn't even aware of it. His ranting is completely focused on jealousy toward the Lakers and doesn't even mention the Hornets specifically. 19 million has just been a convenient post hoc excuse to justify a move that was inspired 100% by pure jealousy.

Gilbert's letter was mailed AFTER the trade was vetoed. It had nothing to do with it.

Gilbert is not the one that vetoed the deal. I wish people would recognize that.

The 19 million wasn't a factor to the current owners. It was a factor in stern trying to sell the team.

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Kstat For This Useful Post:

Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

Yeah, the idea that the deal was vetoed because of Gilbert or the owners being jealous is bogus.

Stern vetoed the deal because it'd destroy the little value the Hornets may have. Burying the team in salaries and mediocrity without any positive assets. Not that I agree with his decision, he should have paid the price for his poor picking of a care-taking GM. The rest are the usual conspiracy theories.

The Following User Says Thank You to oz_pacer For This Useful Post:

Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

Demps was never going to be GM for long. Hence in my opinion he was looking to acquire players for this season, without regard to the long-term interests. The Lakers-Rockets-Hornets deal satified his criteria completely. Odom and Scola are older, but produce.

Stern had a very different perspective- the need to sell the team, convincing potential owners of contained costs and future potential.

The Clips deal would seem to be a lot closer to Stern's objective, and the demand to also include E Gordon seems to fill both short and long-term issues.

I think the deal may have a heartbeat again soon, if the E Gordon component is dropped.

Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

Yeah, the idea that the deal was vetoed because of Gilbert or the owners being jealous is bogus.

Stern vetoed the deal because it'd destroy the little value the Hornets may have. Burying the team in salaries and mediocrity without any positive assets. Not that I agree with his decision, he should have paid the price for his poor picking of a care-taking GM. The rest are the usual conspiracy theories.

I don't know how letting the only marketable player on their roster just walk away without any compensation is going to help the value of that franchise and further a potential sale.

Re: Chris Paul to Clippers

Yeah, the idea that the deal was vetoed because of Gilbert or the owners being jealous is bogus.

Stern vetoed the deal because it'd destroy the little value the Hornets may have. Burying the team in salaries and mediocrity without any positive assets. Not that I agree with his decision, he should have paid the price for his poor picking of a care-taking GM. The rest are the usual conspiracy theories.

I don't think the deal would have been near as crippling as you make it out to be.

First, Odom has a team option for 12-13 so they could have just decided to not pick that up if they so pleased. Second, Kevin Martin is a FA after 2013 so in a year from now he is an expiring contract. Scola is the only long term contract and it is indeed a long and pricey deal. But Odom and Kevin Martin's deals aren't that bad at all. And they would have at least had a competitive team.